Other Club Transfers 2022

[Villa_Fan]

Quite sickening that. If they're going for Rice and Caicedo in the summer, we can't compete.

They aren't going for Rice and Caicedo in the summer

 

[Villa_Fan]

It's disgusting. But all be brushed under the carpet and I'm sure @Villa_Fan can justify their current £500mill+ transfer outlay.

Basic economics shouldn't really require justification or explanation but if u want me to walk u through it I am happy to.

 

[arbok]

Regarding Enzo - There’s a reason other clubs don’t do long term deals. You can’t sell the players to other clubs and the risk is too high if something happens to the player. There’s a reason most deals max out at 5 years because most players peak are that length and you can renegotiate any time.

I hope Chelsea fall apart because they’re basically making a mockery of everyone else with how much money they have.

 

[TheBigIguana]

Regarding Enzo - There’s a reason other clubs don’t do long term deals. You can’t sell the players to other clubs and the risk is too high if something happens to the player. There’s a reason most deals max out at 5 years because most players peak are that length and you can renegotiate any time.

I hope Chelsea fall apart because they’re basically making a mockery of everyone else with how much money they have.

They had no plan at all. Half a billion and I'm not sure anyone can pick out what their best team is or how they should even begin to line up.

 

[Littlesue]

That’s the deal sheet, this isn’t that.

Oh fair enough, another loophole?

 

[Billy Dean]

Re Chelsea's spree, the league's rules are for profit and loss over a 3-year period right? So if their profits and losses have been ok in the previous years then maybe what they're doing now is possible? And I would've thought once they've taken care of incoming transfers, they will have tons of saleable assets in their first team squad and academy that they can recoup a lot of money for. And they regularly get champions league revenue, and blue chip sponsorship deals

 

[kenada_blue]

Basic economics shouldn't really require justification or explanation but if u want me to walk u through it I am happy to.

It's fine. You don't have to justify the farcical rules for a closed shop.

Feel the European Super league is actually a great idea for them.

 

[kenada_blue]

Re Chelsea's spree, the league's rules are for profit and loss over a 3-year period right? So if their profits and losses have been ok in the previous years then maybe what they're doing now is possible? And I would've thought once they've taken care of incoming transfers, they will have tons of saleable assets in their first team squad and academy that they can recoup a lot of money for. And they regularly get champions league revenue, and blue chip sponsorship deals

Build on the back of russian blood money and £1.5billion debt.

But it's all sustainable innit. Especially if they don't get champions league this year

 

[Billy Dean]

Build on the back of russian blood money and £1.5billion debt.

But it's all sustainable innit. Especially if they don't get champions league this year

I'm not an expert on Chelsea's finances like, but as far as I know there are no rules on where the money comes from, so that is irrelevant. It's about profit and loss from what I can tell.

 

[kenada_blue]

I'm not an expert on Chelsea's finances like, but as far as I know there are no rules on where the money comes from, so that is irrelevant. It's about profit and loss from what I can tell.

It's called a racket

 

[Pat Butcher]

We are in a bad position obviously, but football isn't played on paper and when Chelsea are stuck with a load of high paid long contract players it will hurt them

 

[Brett Angell Delight]

Re Chelsea's spree, the league's rules are for profit and loss over a 3-year period right? So if their profits and losses have been ok in the previous years then maybe what they're doing now is possible? And I would've thought once they've taken care of incoming transfers, they will have tons of saleable assets in their first team squad and academy that they can recoup a lot of money for. And they regularly get champions league revenue, and blue chip sponsorship deals

Sure I read they start with a clean slate under new ownership, anyway, so assuming their spend is relatively modest for the next two years, they have the next 2.5 to make enough to cover their outlay, or at least offset it past the point of the allowed loss threshold.

The problem, as @TheBigIguana alluded to, is when they realise they have a disjointed squad with players on long contracts that are hard to shift and then they go into Everton mode, spending wildly on short term fixes that somehow make things worse.

We can all watch on smugly, then, while we cheer on FC Everton 2023 tearing it up in the Northern Counties Premier Division

 

[hktoffee]

Can’t blame it on the fax machine now.

 

[Nymzee]

Big big loss for Southampton.

 

[wm02]

Regarding Enzo - There’s a reason other clubs don’t do long term deals. You can’t sell the players to other clubs and the risk is too high if something happens to the player. There’s a reason most deals max out at 5 years because most players peak are that length and you can renegotiate any time.

I hope Chelsea fall apart because they’re basically making a mockery of everyone else with how much money they have.

Yup. It’s a very risky strategy.
Boehly has done similarly with his baseball team (big long-term contracts), but it’s more feasible there given the longer careers, less risk of serious injury, etc.